Interaction of water temperature and challenge model on xenoma development rates for <i>Loma salmonae</i> (Microspora) in rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> (Walbaum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the regulatory effects of water temperature on the development of branchial xenomas caused by Loma salmonae using a high-dose per os-challenge model compared with a low-dose cohabitation-challenge model. Approximately 275 juvenile rainbow trout (RBT), Oncorhynchus mykiss, were randomly distributed to six tanks with two tanks each maintained at 11, 15 and 19 degrees C. Fish in one tank from each temperature setting were exposed per os to macerated L. salmonae-infected gill material and fish in the other tank from each temperature setting were exposed to L. salmonae using the cohabitation-challenge model. Fish were monitored for the development of branchial xenomas beginning at day 21 post-exposure. Survival analyses were used to evaluate the effect of water temperature and challenge model on the number of days until the first visible branchial xenoma was detected. The survivor curves for the per os-challenge model revealed that there was at least one significant difference, whereas the cohabitation challenge did not reveal any significant differences amongst the temperature settings. The proportional hazards model revealed a significant interaction between the challenge model used and water temperature. This indicated that the effect of water temperature was different depending on challenge model. Additionally, from the mean xenoma intensities, on average, the per os-challenged fish showed higher xenoma intensity compared with the cohabitation-challenged fish. Overall, the impact of water temperature on disease pathogenesis was greater when the RBT were per os challenged compared with using the cohabitation model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".